Breaking

Home Top Ad

Post Top Ad

Sep 12, 2018

Antisemitism definition sparks backlash on U.S. Left

The matter in question is whether opposing Jewish self-determination in
the ancestral Jewish homeland of Israel, a political movement known as
Zionism, should be considered antisemitic.
By Michael Wilner

Washington - A debate over the definition of antisemitism that has
paralyzed Britain’s Labour Party made its way across the Atlantic this
week, amid news that the Trump administration would apply a similar
standard on discrimination toward Jews under scrutiny there at the US
Department of Education.

The matter in question is whether opposing Jewish self-determination in
the ancestral Jewish homeland of Israel, a political movement known as
Zionism, should be considered antisemitic. Several Western government
agencies, including the foreign and justice ministries of the US,
Britain and Germany, have policies that deem anti-Zionism a
discriminatory practice that uniquely denies Jews the right to govern
themselves.

But the Trump administration is now applying that standard in America’s
schools, where anti-Israelism has raged in recent years in the form of
the BDS movement meant to delegitimize the Jewish state in advancement
of the Palestinian cause.

A policy paper released last month by Kenneth Marcus, the assistant
secretary of education for civil rights, announced that department would
adopt the US State Department definition of antisemitism that applies a
test of “three Ds” to determine Jewish discrimination: Delegitimization
of Israel, demonization of Israel, and the subjection of Israel to
double standards.

That definition classifies opposition to Israel’s existence as a form of
antisemitism, according to former officials from the Obama
administration, which adopted the definition.

The Senate has advanced legislation in recent months which supports the
application of this standard at the education department.

Marcus also announced the reopening of a years-old case involving
anti-Israelism, directed toward Jewish students at Rutgers University,
in which the department would repackage its argument based on the new
policy.

Palestinian groups and several liberal journalists were swift to
criticize the move as an attack on free speech, and as an attempt by
Israel advocates to stifle opposition.

The debate mirrors a two-year-old scandal in Britain that has
traumatized its left-wing Labour Party and has challenged its leader,
Jeremy Corbyn, who himself has been accused of antisemitism by numerous
British dignitaries, including members of his own party and former chief
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.

There, several complaints of antisemitism were filed against Labour
members of Parliament and went unanswered until internal pressure within
the party raised the prospect of adopting the International Holocaust
Remembrance Association’s working definition of antisemitism – a similar
model.

Corbyn – who throughout his career has campaigned against Zionism and
Israel – has refused to adopt the full definition, including condemned
examples of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and questioning the state’s
right to exist.

The Labour leader and his supporters campaigned for a “free speech”
clause which protects these criticisms of the Jewish state from
accusations of antisemitism.

In the US Senate, a similar debate over free speech recently led to
amendments to the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which would amend the Export
Administration Act of 1979 to shield Israel and Israeli businesses from
international boycotts of virtually any kind. Specifically, the bill
would criminally penalize US persons seeking to collect information on
another party’s relationship with Israel in pursuance of a boycott.

The bill has been opposed by the nation’s leading civil rights
organization, the ACLU, over concerns it might violate the first
amendment.

The 1979 act was originally written to protect US companies from Arab
League sanctions on Israel, during a period in which Arab states were
moving to brand Zionism as racism. They successfully did so at the
United Nations in 1979, in a resolution which was later revoked by the
General Assembly in light of the Madrid Conference, and which
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2015 said “badly damaged” the
reputation of the international body.https://www.geezgo.com/sps/38944